This is super rude move from HumbleBundle! I've purchased games on their site and it's my right to trade these keys, gift these keys, sell these keys or just use it by myself! And this right is protected by EU law!
Just look at their 180 turn when you started to talk about them breaking the EU law! Hilarious! This company must be sued for such rude and ugly service. I hope people from EU, who got blocked by HumbleBundle will file a class action lawsuit!
Good for you there is no problem to send them such 100% facts answer, but many teenager users, who got blocked will just give up and it's not fair!
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you sure that in EU we can legally resell keys?
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, yes, we definitely can. The French even stated that you should be able to resell your activated keys, not just the unactivated ones. A digital key is considered good in the EU, not a service, so it can be freely resold. This is why we can buy refurbished Windows licenses in the EU completely legally (and sometimes from the companies themselves) for a few Euro on eBay.
Comment has been collapsed.
The French even stated that you should be able to resell your activated keys, not just the unactivated ones.
The games doesn't have any form of key, what's activated is not the key for the game, instead it's the key for the DRM system which checks you own the license to play the game, at least by binding it to an account.
And I never saw any EULA giving me any license to use the DRM system, never saw any invoice saying I bought any DRM. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So yes, I think I really should be able to easily resell activated keys as I want!
Comment has been collapsed.
There's also an economic matter : nowadays technological progress has a diminishing economic impact : when you buy something cheaper it often means that some worker get paid less, not that some new technology diminished any cost. That's often the opposite when taking into account environmental impact : costs are increasing, not people's wages.
All those so-called defenders of the IP doesn't defend game devs wages : with an open second-hand market, it's possible to take a fee on each transaction for the game devs, but this would bypass their current publisher, which would get less money...
But they pretend games are cheaper their way... everybody wants cheaper... that's a vicious circle I would prefer to see broken : online-DRMs weren't there in the 80's and the 90's, and people were able to sell their used cartridges, floppies, CDs,... videogames weren't really more expensive (inflation accounted) in this era when the market was really smaller! (and piracy had even a bigger effect).
Comment has been collapsed.
If it is good and fair on the other hand is open to speculation. I just think it is idiocy.
Comment has been collapsed.
It is really sad what IGN is doing to Humble Bundle. Makes me hate them more than their shit site does.
Comment has been collapsed.
They were doing this way before IGN even started thinking about buying them. Their policy of key reselling comes from the push of publishers and not even IGN.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've got my account disabled for no reason almost two years now, the company don't want even to talk and they revoke 2 entire bundles but not refund the money, and still have other unrevealed games in my account. This is a thief.
Right now i know (sadly) that as a european citizen there is nothing i can do, i will not go to trial with this company if i'm not even in the same country.
Comment has been collapsed.
Like I said before somewhere here on SteamGifts forums...
They only will respect people's digital properties when owners start to treat their own digital stuff as properties.
Comment has been collapsed.
What do the humble bundle thing we have to do with 100 of leftovers. The bundles repeats and thats normal that at this point you have to ask yourself what to do with this games. If the humble bundle is not ok with it they should give an option to remove the games from the bundles that you allready got.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nice! Saving this lad's reply to send to HB shitheads if i ever get my account suspended!
Comment has been collapsed.
There isn't any law that forbids sites from banning users tho. Only thing EU law can affect is whether you can have access to your bought keys or not after getting banned.
If you have a right to resell bundled keys then all devs have the right to never sell to bundles again. Do we really want to kill bundles just so some kids can trade for profit?
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you really think that those "kids" ruin someone's profit?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah why would devs want to sell games for retail price when they can continue to get only cents while some kid gets much more. Makes perfect sense since the kid has done all the work for the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
First of all, not devs decide financial aspect of the game, but publisher.
Secondly, those "kids" paid for those games the price that game publishers decided to set and if publisher decided to bundle a game then there was a reason to do that and they are fine to receive "cents".
And lastly, stop calling people "kids", how do you know their age? If you are equaling them to the kids because of their behaviour, then you are even more childish.
Comment has been collapsed.
Secondly, those "kids" paid for those games the price that game publishers decided to set and if publisher decided to bundle a game then there was a reason to do that and they are fine to receive "cents".
Maybe they're not "fine to receive cents", but are forced to because the bundle market (along with resellers and traders) is devaluing games at an alarming rate. Why would you pay $15 for a game when you can get a similar game in a bundle (or from a grey market or trader) for $0.30?
It's the same reason buying gifts on Steam went the way it did. Nevermind that the traders and resellers also killed off legitimate gifting, right?
Worth a read: https://www.reddit.com/r/humblebundles/comments/8xd4fz/how_humblebundle_created_the_bundle_market_and/
Comment has been collapsed.
I always found it strange when someone blames an individual for what market forces do. It's like when people criticized the App Store for $0.99 games/apps and Steam's fire sales for deep discounts. "Devaluing" games (which in of itself is suggesting that some sort of crime is happening, which it isn't) isn't done by any single person. The market decides how much demand there is at a given price. The price or going rate is what the market decides the value should be. It's like a company complaining that investors have devalued their share price.
Furthermore, your argument could still be made without traders and resellers even being in the picture, what with all the games being given away for free on a regular basis by all of the outlets (Steam, HB, Ubisoft, EA, GMG, EGS, etc.) why would anyone pay any money, even 30c, for a similar game?
If something won't sell at $15, it won't sell at $15. Demand doesn't somehow manifest itself due to a lack of options on a non-essential good. Avoid the Koolaid, I'll link to my earlier comment to avoid repeating myself (https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/IB8RaYg)
Comment has been collapsed.
I always found it strange when someone blames an individual for what market forces do.
It's a good thing I didn't blame an individual then, isn't it? I also in no way implied it's some sort of "crime." The simple truth is, the value of a game drops significantly once it's bundled. In fact, I'd be willing to bet a game being bundled also affects retail sales for similar games.
The price or going rate is what the market decides the value should be.
Correct, but the perceived value is bottoming out thanks to bundles, traders, and resellers. And then we wonder why we get shitty games in recent bundles. It's because fewer and fewer people are paying respectable prices for games.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not sure if you're being purposefully obtuse. I'll assume that you're not for the benefit of the doubt as otherwise it's a silly banter between us when I could do the same and say I never said "you" but "someone".
To answer your statement, resellers and traders are individuals, so yes, if someone is blaming "them", they're blaming those individuals that make up that group. Also, the language "devalue" implies that there's a "true value" and a "lower value". The implication of crime was to contextualize that something is occurring that is not desired (who wants to be valued less than their true worth?). What I'm getting it is that the language you're using tries to form a judgement about the merit of something before the reader gets to hear the details (e.g. like someone arguing "my work is underpaying me for what I do" but you haven't yet heard what those details are).
Your argument on the value of a game dropping after it's bundled ignores the first step, which is that the value of a game is dictated by the market (which you later add in my quote). The market is driven by demand and supply. The value of a game is what it is. You then go on to to personify the demand in that market as "fewer and fewer people are paying respectable prices for games" which is just stating that there's little demand at a given price for a particular game and it's the "fault of those people over there", when really, it's no one's fault, it's just a function of what demand there is out there. It would be like someone blaming more attractive people for a lack of demand from the general public to have sex with them, they'd argue "those people are devaluing my worth". But you should really see straight through that weak argument and realize what's actually at play.
Companies aren't bundling their games due to their generosity (while they will promote the charity angle, it's not what's driving the decision outside of extreme situations). They're engaging in bundles when it makes financial sense for them to do so and a bundle by nature is attractive to buyers because it allows them to acquire something for less than the sum of its parts. If a company feels their product is still selling well individually, they won't go into a bundle, regardless of whether there's a resale market or not. Blaming the composition of a bundle (i.e. made up of "shitty games") on a lack of demand from the market is odd since those games are bundled because the company feels they will make more money from the bundle than selling them individually. The alternative would suggest that if demand was strong (i.e. "people were paying respectable prices"), then bundles with "good" games would then become more prevalent, which is completely counter to how a business is motivated to sell their games.
Avoid the Koolaid is what this would be best summarized as.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for the article, it was indeed an interesting read.
Unfortunately, this guy certainly lacks game reselling experience and I presume you are also not familiar of how games from bundles sell. Let's take bundle from early 2017 - The Humble Bundle’s: Best of 2016. It sold thousands of copies just because Rust was in Tier 2 and now we can see that this game hasn't devalued, but opposite ~30 euro on grey markets.
If games can't recover because of bundles, then it is not about bundles, but games overall quality/popularity. Look at all these Paradox bundles with Cities Skylines and EU IV in Tier 1. Those games easily recover back to ~4-5 eur after 3 months.
Moreover, this post on Reddit states that we are on our way where major publishers will stop bundling their games and as you can see the recent 2 months were pretty rich in game bundle quantity and quality.
This happens, because Humble Bundle achieved what it wanted and got rid of those big resellers. Biggest grey market resellers can now get at most ~500 bundles and in comparison to the 2017 it is nothing. I don't really understand what Humble Bundle is doing right now, their system worked fine for the last few years and now they just became greed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe they're not "fine to receive cents", but are forced to because the bundle market (along with resellers and traders) is devaluing games at an alarming rate.
Don't want bundles to devalue your game then don't put it in one. Shockingly simple right?
Comment has been collapsed.
You should really follow that logic.
Remember, only 1 key is bought and 1 key is activated. So if 1000 keys are sold, that dev/publisher got paid for 1000 keys. If those keys are later resold for "cents", the reseller is the one stuck with them, it doesn't benefit them (no one wants to hang on to keys for years and sell them for 30c later) and the original dev/publisher still got paid. In that scenario, it actually benefits the dev/publisher as there's clearly no demand for the game and they sold more keys through the bundled offering than the market would absorb individually (i.e. the alternative would be that they would have sold 1000 less keys if that reseller didn't buy them and the market would also not buy 1000 keys from them at any price higher than what the reseller was selling them at).
On the other end of the spectrum, if those 1000 keys are resold later for more than "cents" (suggesting there's a lot of demand for the game), then that supply of keys will dry up quickly and the price will go up until it reaches the going rate again, which may be the regular price of the game. This happens with popular games. Of course, you can also have mixes that fall somewhere in the middle.
At the end of the day, the concept of supply and demand still exists, even without a resale market (which btw, exists for almost every single other good out there). No one is entitled to not to have to contend with competition. I have to echo again, one key is bought and one key is activated. This isn't like the used games argument where one can argue that 1 game is bought and 2 people got to play it (and even the "harm" of that was contested).
Try to avoid the Koolaid from HB and any devs/publishers who want you to believe that free market rules only harm consumers.
Comment has been collapsed.
If 1000 people buy the bundle and 9000 buy the game later at retail price, do you think they made the exactly same amount of money than if 1000 people and 9000 resellers buy the bundle and 9000 buy the game later and reseller price?
Bundles are ads to promote games, not a way to earn a lot from the cents for any decent dev. If you want all bundles to have nothing but shovelware that is another thing.
Consumers are harmed by less and worse bundles caused by mainly these kids who for some reason think they are the ones that should benefit from the work of the devs. They already killed gifting on Steam, do you really want bundles to die next?
Comment has been collapsed.
Bundles are ads to promote games, (...)
I've bought a bundle, and now I'm nothing more than a sandwich... :-(((
Comment has been collapsed.
Or even if all 10000 buy the bundle, for that matter. But yes, I agree. More people would buy the bundles and retail-priced games without trading/reselling.
Comment has been collapsed.
Again, you're ignore basic demand and supply mechanics, what you're describing is not at all how the market works. You don't get to sell 10,000 units of something arbitrarily without any anchor to price or demographic. I'll leave the math for that last though (see "Challenges with Your Example" at the end).
The argument that bundles are ads to promote games ignores any kind of profit seeking from the business. If they agree to a bundle, it's because there is some financial benefit to them in terms of real profit (proceeds from the sales, tax writeoffs from the donated component, etc.). Otherwise, if it's just meant to advertise, they could do a free weekend on steam promotion, a raffle, a demo period, etc. without going into a bundle should they be concerned about some aspect of the market.
You are right about one thing though, less choice does harm consumers. That includes not having access to a resale market. Again, avoid the Koolaid. It's like trying to argue that if Gamestop or Blockbuster didn't exist, that all of those transactions would've happened anyways through the original source. It doesn't work like that and businesses like to create boogeymen to use as scapegoats for why something did or didn't happen. A free market is the best approach if you're looking for the optimal amount of competition. However, if you don't want to compete, then it's better for you to try and artificially control the market, which is what some businesses try to do.
Challenges with Your Example
If we go by your example and assume that only 1000 people bought a bundle for their own use, that implies there was only demand at that time from 1000 people. If the resellers disappear, 9000 additional people don't all of a sudden appear to buy the bundle, there's still only 1000. Now if the resellers did exist and bought that additional 9000 keys you described, then there's potential for 9000 subsequent transactions that can happen at a later date. Those additional 9000 keys can be sold for either more or less than what the developer/publisher got under the bundle profits (so it can go both ways). In the event a game sells for "cents", then it's likely the dev/publisher will have made more money from the bundle than the resold ones from the resellers, negating the argument about devaluation as they would have never sold those keys in the first place outside of the bundle deal/proceeds they received. If on the other hand those 9000 keys sell for more than what the dev/publisher got under the bundle terms, then that supply will eventually dry up until the game's resale price matches their regular price and you could argue that the bundle was the less profitable vehicle for them. In that case, the argument becomes a time discussion regarding what was more beneficial, to have the money sooner under a lump sum or to spread it out over time (and that's much harder to discern in terms of what's better or worse).
Comment has been collapsed.
. If the resellers disappear, 9000 additional people don't all of a sudden appear to buy the bundle, there's still only 1000.
You're making a very unlikely assumption. If no other avenue to get a game cheaper exists (aka resellers), then more people will buy the bundle, as it's likely to be the best price available at the time (or any time soon after).
You're also arguing that the 9000 keys that resellers purchase are a "good thing", because they're funneling money (albeit cents on the dollar) back to developers and publishers, but the fact is that resellers are hurting retail sales long after the bundle has stopped being sold. More and more developers are citing this as the reason they won't deeply discount or bundle their games. (Of course, you'll simply dismiss that with your "Koolaid" line again).
Obviously, you're free to keep pushing this pro-reseller mentality all you like, but in the end, it's going to lead to shittier and shittier bundles. Either that or we're going to see more and more DLC-infested base games being bundled merely to sell their DLC (and I believe we're already seeing that). Or we're likely to see a more aggressive way to foil resellers and traders, such as single-key bundles or account-only activations
Comment has been collapsed.
This is correct. That`s why in some countries the retailers are prohibited to have a sale outside a certain time frame. I guess drinking the kool aid is a good thing because it makes me see what is obvious as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
Totally unrelated, I wish I knew how to respond with the quotes you use at it makes it a lot easier on the reader (so thank you as it is helpful).
On topic, the point you challenged on demand could be argued for staple goods that have inelastic demand (gas, water, electricity, etc.) but we're talking about video games here, so a lack of options won't force people to buy at a higher price. There's a slew of alternatives from other games, other entertainment, other models (subscription), etc. to choose from which would also include the option of not buying a game and doing something else altogether. So yes, I would argue that demand for games is very elastic and reactionary to price.
Having said that. A bundle is the better value so most people who are interested in a given set of games would buy the bundle vs going to a reseller (while the bundle is available of course). The only people who wouldn't buy the bundle are those that either don't care to pay the price (i.e. it's still to high for them) or that weren't aware that the bundle was going on (i.e. they missed out at the time). None of those people can "convert" to buy the bundle while it was up so you end up with the amount of people that bought the bundle originally anyways (1000 in the example at hand). You could argue that there may be a subset of people who weren't happy with the bundle price but would buy an individual game from a reseller for less, except that if the reseller didn't exist, they would then push up their price to the bundle price and buy the bundle. While nothing prevents that subset of people from existing, that's an exceptionally narrow subset just through the sheer number of conditions that have to be met (similar to the number of people who would still buy a console at launch price vs a lower price only because there's no other option - that's really few people, if any at all).
I'm not sure I'm arguing that resellers are "good" or "bad". They just exist and are a component of a free market. It's like arguing whether wholesalers or businesses that sell on consignment are "good" or "bad". They just exist. If you're looking at them from a given perspective, the financial gain for someone depends on their situation. If my game is the equivalent of Ouya and I can get a bunch of resellers to be stuck with copies of it for years, then they could be seen as "good" from my perspective as I benefited from that assuming I received money upfront from most of the demand there was or ever will be in the market. On the other hand, if I bundle my just launched game right away and I haven't yet properly marketed my game at lower prices to absorb sales at each price tier, then I can have acted too prematurely and not maximized my profit.
The reason I dismiss some of those company statements you mentioned as Koolaid is because at the end of the day, it's about maximizing profit above everything else. If someone can make more money from selling their game individually, they will do so and it won't go into a bundle. They won't engage in a bundle out of the generosity of their hearts (that's not what the business is there to do, it's first to make profit). Once you start to recognize what motivates their actions, the incidental comments about why they engage in DLC, or discounting, or bundling, or having demos, or loot boxes, etc. all fades away. The reason they engage in a bundle is because it makes financial sense for them to do so at that time. The complaints that may later come from some companies about the resale market is like a store complaining that a gift card they gave under a promotion is now eating into their sales because other people gifted or sold those away later. It ignores that they're only out there because the business factored it into their original sale or margin.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah we get that you're a sour reseller stuck with worthless keys. Nobody else is that interested in defending the business or imagines the cents are a major source of income to anyone except kids and Russian shovelware pushers.
Comment has been collapsed.
The "kids" don't ruin the profit, but there are professionally run one man operations buying thousands of bundles via VPNs and proxies, and reselling them.
You can still buy keys from Humble Origin Bundle 2 which happened in 2015. They are on G2A, Kinguin, etc. Devs hate this, and refuse to include their good games in bundles. Gamers would benefit in long run if bundle games were bundled in one key or activated remotely.
Comment has been collapsed.
They was already some years ago, direct activation on Humble & IndieGala, right?
Don't remember, why they came back to keys...?
Comment has been collapsed.
some kids making a few bucks in profit isn't okay, but megacorps making millions in profits is okay. this planet is a funny place
Comment has been collapsed.
The kids can continue to trade asset flips for the cards like real people instead of ruining the chances of good bundles.
Funny part is that the corps (and indie devs) are the ones actually making the games, not the kids.
Comment has been collapsed.
GTFO with your logic. I want to profit with other people`s intellectual property.
Comment has been collapsed.
sorry, this bundle isn't available in your country!
i expect this to happen soon if HB gets tired of traders outside USA. 😂
Comment has been collapsed.
are you aware that they completely lock you out of your account and you can't access the games you purchased anymore?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes? Why else would I have written
Only thing EU law can affect is whether you can have access to your bought keys or not after getting banned.
Comment has been collapsed.
There isn't any law that forbids sites from banning users tho. Only thing EU law can affect is whether you can have access to your bought keys or not after getting banned.
Actually... Idk if there's a EU law against that, but at least one European country does have a law against that: you can't refuse to serve a customer unless you have one hell of a good reason to do so (and although it would be up to a judge to decide that, I'm fairly sure gifting leftover keys from a reasonable amount of bundles isn't "one hell of a good reason" to refuse service)
Comment has been collapsed.
That's common and is meant to prevent racism etc prejudice as in refusing to serve customers because of skin color, religion or whatever. It has nothing to do with banning people that break your ToS like stealing from the store.
Comment has been collapsed.
Stealing from a store isn't "breaking the ToS", it's breaking the law. Breaking the ToS isn't illegal (unlike what many businesses try to make people believe), and as mentioned in the original post, ToS don't supersede the law.
Comment has been collapsed.
And like I have said, that point is irrelevant in this case since absolutely no law is broken by banning people.
Comment has been collapsed.
And like I have said, that point is irrelevant in this case since absolutely no law is broken by banning people.
I do disagree, there's an international convention forbidding to ban people! Look there!
(-:
Comment has been collapsed.
Again
at least one European country does have a law against that: you can't refuse to serve a customer unless you have one hell of a good reason to do so
Breaking some laws could be a good reason, but just breaking the ToS, nope.
I guess they could prevent one account from doing further purchases, but they
1) should let the account owner access all their previous purchases and
2) should let the account owner create a new account/make new purchases (making it a bit pointless to "ban" them in the first place)
If you want the legal details/references, here they are (not in English though since it's a local law)
But anyway, as a consumer, not sure you'd want to insist giving money to a company who's been so hostile to you anyway...
Comment has been collapsed.
That is just BS, did you even try to translate the law? Google tells me that
Case law has made it possible to identify a few categories of legitimate reasons:
..
inappropriate consumer behavior, bad faith;
..
A store can ban a group of kids for example for just being loud, littering and bothering other customers even if none of those are illegal, just against the store's policies of what is acceptable. Even with your french law that's clearly allowed.
Again right from the first message
Only thing EU law can affect is whether you can have access to your bought keys or not after getting banned.
Comment has been collapsed.
A store can ban a group of kids for example for just being loud, littering and bothering other customers
Something that doesn't really compare to giving away the products your purchased!
Comment has been collapsed.
That is also irrelevant to their right to refuse customers if there is adequate reason like breaking their rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
A store can ban a group of kids for example for just being loud, littering and bothering other customers even if none of those are illegal, just against the store's policies of what is acceptable. Even with your french law that's clearly allowed.
That's quite not the hammer you describe, for the record theaters are usually not banning loud kids on first offense, even if it's clearly not acceptable for everybody. In fact they're usually not banning at all : relying on educative measures, or even only explanations, may be way enough in so many situations.... Moreover no permanent lifetime ban may be issued by the theater owner himself (no way), even if kids holding chain saws could be denied entrance for obvious safety & security reasons, they're allowed to come back later once they left their chain saws at home! Like in good ol' far west USA: saloon entrance was allowed only after letting guns at sheriff's office... but if one forgot to go to the office before going to the saloon, the saloon won't issue a permanent lifetime ban against him...
Comment has been collapsed.
That is also irrelevant to their right to refuse customers if there is adequate reason like breaking their rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, so it's irrelevant, you won, I am defeated.
Are you implying that kids are allowed to hold chain saws in the streets of your country ?
(-:
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you implying that everyone HAS to do everything they have a lawful right to do? How some unrelated business handles their problematic customers in most cases is relevant to this case how exactly?
I'm just making examples regarding the law, not trying to say Humble Bundle is a movie theater or that if you can't talk loudly in a library then that means that you can't talk loudly in a very noisy night club either. But both the library and the night club have the lawful right to ban customers who are causing problems by talking loudly or getting too drunk and picking fights. That still doesn't mean that they have to ban everyone doing that if they choose not to.
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you implying that everyone HAS to do everything they have a lawful right to do?
Holding chain saws in the streets may be seen as a public order disturbance ; or may not be ; depending on the countries... If I recall correctly, denizens of Texas state may hold guns in streets, but that's untrue in other US states... I'm saying here that the idea of "lawful right" doesn't have an international definition : in common sense such a dispute is solved when one side of the case falls in court ; but in fact, both sides may be in their "lawful right" each in their own country. Thus this common approach consisting of looking for what is lawful is not giving any solution to such a dispute.
How some unrelated business handles their problematic customers in most cases is relevant to this case how exactly?
Commercial competition. If a loud kid is banned from a bookstore, whatever reason, he'll go to the next. And if the next does the same, he'll go looking for other forms of entertainment in other stores, like video game stores, or even chain saws stores :-)
But both the library and the night club have the lawful right to ban customers who are causing problems by talking loudly or getting too drunk and picking fights.
No way here such a ban can be a permanent lifetime ban. Both the night club and the library would most probably let you come the day after, probably, surely, keeping an eye on you, but still you would be allowed to enter if you show understanding of why you did something bad the day before. But getting too drunk and picking fights are bad examples because those are not related to the store rules (ToS), but prohibited by law. There's quite a monstrous gap between enforcing the law and enforcing your own rules... and when it comes about law, its limits to the duration of any punishment are way below lifetime, even in case of a bloody chain saw mass murder! This may be untrue in other countries.
That still doesn't mean that they have to ban everyone doing that if they choose not to.
I would advise against doing that here, one shall take an educated decision only on a factual basis, not on a person basis : if you ban a kid because of the chain saw he holds, then you'll have to ban each and every person holding a chain saw. And such a ban, issued by the store, would be required to have a duration limit. And of course, as you already agreed before, the store wouldn't be allowed to retain the chain saw... even if it's a chain saw store that is banning you because you were scaring other people with the chain saw you just bought!
(-:
Comment has been collapsed.
That's why international lawsuits are handled in the country where the supposed crime or whatever happened. If Humble sells in EU, then they must abide EU laws or get sued in EU courts. It's completely irrelevant to this what is legal in USA or not. Or what some kids imagine the EU law means and allows them to do.
You're just saying reasons why some business should do this or that. That is also completely irrelevant to their rights to do something. Banning that loud kid that would never buy a book anyways can result in more customers coming in because they stop being annoyed by the shouting. The point still is that the bookstore has the right to ban offending customers and they can't sue the bookstore for something they had full legal right to do. Not what makes most sense or increases profits most.
Where exactly is getting too drunk illegal? Or even picking fights if none actually happen.
Your advice is irrelevant since nobody is reading it who actually decides these things.
We're talking about legality of actions here, not what is morally right or best for business or any other completely irrelevant thing. If they keep doing legal things that are bad for business, then money talks and share holders fire a CEO or two and things change. They still have the full legal right to make bad decisions.
Comment has been collapsed.
No EU law may compel a foreign company to sell in the EU and international disputes may be an economical matter before being a juridical one : what is legal in the country of a foreign company may be well-adapted to sustain it economically, thus voiding its will to sell to foreigners, so no more chainsaws for me if, listening you, I sue my favorite foreign chainsaw maker. Thus, what is legal in their country is relevant here also!
You're still ignoring what DingDong2 told you : your imaginary point is leading you to invent rights that never existed here. You're over interpreting the legitimate reasons a store owner may use to refuse once a sale as valid causes to ban forever a consumer... That's a wrong chainsaw-like reasoning, and I already answered it with the example of the kids coming to the theater holding chainsaws. That's quite common here, since we don't celebrate Halloween, aimless kids celebrates the chainsaw day when they're strong enough to hold a chainsaw. Did you never heard about that tradition? :-)
Getting too drunk in public places is illegal by itself here in France since 1873 : link in French ; and picking a fight is a physical threat against someone, and is illegal by itself here in France even if no fight happens : link in French
There's no actual advice when one says "I would advice against...", that's only a way to introduce an argument... Like all those chainsaws I'm talking about, in fact there's no chainsaw here! :-) I don't see where you read moral arguments from me, I'm usually not speaking about morality, but about chainsaws. Yeah, that's quite out of topic... but also I'm quite pissed off against all those people eager (and used to) to strike their hammer before powering up their brain... hence, the chainsaw! We really don't know what leads HB to ban people they banned, we only saw their bad communication about it that makes us feel they used their hammer... perhaps true, perhaps untrue... we cannot tell!
But... what makes you think « [they] have the full legal right to make bad decisions » ? That's a very selfish idea, and your morality there. Do you know what? Yeah, you get it... there's even a French law against that : they contracted with their consumers, hence generally speaking they have no right to harm them deliberately. Sorry, no link this time, it would need a real lawyer to show you real evidence that being too selfish is not allowed, and that firing scapegoat CEOs is an irresponsible practice in law meaning, not only in moral meaning, because condoning that would in reality void any law... Like an employee firing an Uber cab a day in order to be late at work everyday: as a CEO, wouldn't you want to fire him/her?
Comment has been collapsed.
Can you even read what I've been writing the whole time? It's completely irrelevant to the legality of some action how morally right or good for business it is. Literally completely. You seem to live in some fantasy world where judges punish people for legal but bad business practices.
My points are imaginary? I guess that's it, you're talking about something completely off-topic if my fully valid points about the actual topic are somehow imaginary. Enjoy your imaginary win.
Comment has been collapsed.
But... I have already said you won a few posts above... how absurd is this ?
(˘･_･˘)
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree.
They have every right to ban a user from making further purchases if they break their ToS. What they don't have a right to is to block that user from accessing things that they've already bought.
I'm not a trader, so I'm not afraid of getting banned, but, Humble really needs to change it's practices here and respect purchases that have already been made.
Comment has been collapsed.
Go live in Sri Lanka if you think EU laws are shit.
LOL what a guy...
Comment has been collapsed.
EU laws are shit, yes. I hate EU and living in a country connected to it.
Comment has been collapsed.
One example that affects me: Tobacco tax. The "snus" i use will get tax something like 200$ per kg. Thing is you put water and salt in yourself and also spices if you want that. This is bad since i want to use this since i can customize it. I guess that's the end of that. Back to buying mixed quality snus with lots of additives. I want to have this country's own rules and not some unknown 3rd party actor i don't know shit about deciding.
Comment has been collapsed.
Fair do's, its better than most of the answers I've heard :D
Comment has been collapsed.
hmmm, it seems like in germany there is no tax on chewing tabacco. so if the taxes are this high for it, it might not be the eu laws but the laws of your country?
Comment has been collapsed.
There is no explicit tax for products which simply do not exist in a country. According to https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/10-02-2020-tobacco-taxation-report.pdf, the only EU country where snus can be legally bought is Sweden.
Comment has been collapsed.
In germany are snus declared as drug ... and in many other countries too. At least from my last knowledge that is 1-2 years old
That will, maybe, explain why so high tax is at it.
As far as i know only allowed in the nordish european countries.
But i am far from a pro at that stuff...
Comment has been collapsed.
How exactly can something you make yourself for personal use be taxed?
Comment has been collapsed.
Not sure though if the EU tax isn't just 60€ and Sweden charges triple of that because they can and want to..
And why would your 'customizable' product be taxed differently than 'mixed quality'?
Comment has been collapsed.
Personally speaking, I can't wait for the flood of tears when bundle sites either go away entirely or only contain trash asset flip games.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think we already get good sales, and have simply become a bunch of spoiled little brats.
Comment has been collapsed.
We have been acting that way but to be fair we can't blame people for wanting the world to be a better place. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Or start selling bundles with expiration date? F.e. have 30 days to activate the key or it's gonna be invalidated?
Comment has been collapsed.
Seriously, this is the best response regarding this issue. A 2 month activation period should be enough to decide if you want to have the game for yourself or give it to a friend for example. And it should discourage resellers from buying bulk and risk having a bunch of their keys unsold.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, perfect idea
Problem is it definitely reduces the value, or does it? Hard to say, there might be stuff I would not buy if it would expire in 1-2 months...
Comment has been collapsed.
Well... IG mainly sells asset flips. Groupees (basically) doesn't sell game bundles anymore. Fanatical does a lot of 'mystery' bundles to get rid of their asset flips (they occasionally have a decent bundle though). Humble mostly does 'choice', comics and books now. And even if they decide to release a 'normal' bundle there are quite a few repeats with one or two new games when they do So... the best (and even the decent) days of bundeling are clearly behind us.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow ! Thanks for sharing this.
Why do they think they get to decide what a user does with the product, after they've purchased it. Absolute fucking clowns
Comment has been collapsed.
Come on Humble...don't be a dick again....(I'm from GER as well, and hope they don't block all...)
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh no, another quasi-monopolist penalized by European laws! Where will we go if no one will be able to apply anti-consumer strategies anymore?
Comment has been collapsed.
People will go to USA or Asia if they want to buy from the horrible monopolies again that get banned in EU.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why does Humble Bundle's Terms of Service forbid that people create GAs from their keys?
I don't really understand this...
Comment has been collapsed.
some time ago I created a discussion regarding what humble bundle decides is a OK and what not
Comment has been collapsed.
That's one of the most misleading titles ever on SG. It clearly suggests that all EU customers are getting banned by Humble now.
Can't you figure out something less false and less dramatic?
Comment has been collapsed.
I like the fact that they allow people to buy bundles several times but only to use them for yourself. Like everybody has 3 Steam accounts where they need to have the same exact games on each of them. The simple fact of setting a limit to how many bundles you can buy superior to 1 is already a contradiction to the fact that we should use the keys only for ourselves and I'm not speaking of the gift link. Am I supposed to gift those links to myself so when I read my mails I can be happy at myself and give myself a kiss to thank myself of being so nice with myself ?
Comment has been collapsed.
You don't have to live in the EU to defend your rights. Exhaustion of intellectual property rights also applies in the USA.
Short: Humble cannot forbid the resale of keys in TOS because it is against the law.
Comment has been collapsed.
you have to think about it from Humble Bundle as well, since they're just the middle people and own very few games. I suspect they're worried they will lose out on bundles and timed exclusives due to how developers/publishers/distributors perceive how these bundles are being "redistributed" without their permission and monetary cut (irregardless if the original bundle would give them a cut or not in the case of charity bundles since it's still cheaper for someone to purchase a discounted key from a bundle than to pay a promotional sale price).
The keys technically allow us to transfer a license and usage of such software from one person/computer/account to another within EU laws, but I would argue, it would be fairer for everyone if we could somehow associate blockchain records with a game license/key so that:
a) we can keep transferring licenses and trace their lineage of usage/association clearly
b) reduce fraud, theft, and start to establish better region pricing controls
c) everyone has a clear understanding of where these licenses are and who has them
d) if licensing games becomes like other intellectual properties, we could find a way to have developers/publishers/distributors still get their cut with secondary exchanges
for anyone who has links to legal citation of digital goods laws - it'd be interesting to read and try to apply them for future support ticket follow ups
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you think the "redistribution" is an issue because of regional pricing?
Comment has been collapsed.
since VPNs are so commonplace (since new ones keep popping up), and paypal doesn't really block cross currency transactions, it does put more onus on the marketplace vendor/seller to prevent wealthier currency-based folks from taking advantage of regional pricing....which I would argue shouldn't be the store's concern. If we created unique wallets (similar to sin numbers) and had transactional blockchain history, it makes regional pricing abuse a non-issue.
disclaimer - I am a hypocrite and have taken advantage of currency discrepancies, however my currency isn't as strong as USD,EUR,GBP are and I can't gain as much as others..but I do benefit
Comment has been collapsed.
you also bring up a good point - some keys are region-locked which makes me wonder how many support tickets were sent out after a trade has been completed when the recipient couldn't redeem and Humble Bundle is left trying to clean up the mess. This is probably another reason why they're cracking down, loss of profits on top of incurred cost of time and support effort.
OR
the developers/publishers/steam are contacted with keys and immediately refer to their legal terms and services which again puts Humble Bundle in a pickle
Comment has been collapsed.
Let's be clear -- this is pretty standard behavior with nearly every large company.
Companies are happy to pay very little for their 'first-line' customer service, which typically consists of people hired off the street and given almost no training. They're told to answer every question using a script.
When someone complains or threatens unwanted action (reporting to a government agency / lawsuit / etc), that's when the 'higher tiers' of customer service get contacted, and that's when customers actually get to have a real conversation with someone who has knowledge and access (and maybe even some understanding and empathy).
Comment has been collapsed.
On the other hand, at my old job, the customer service reps were taught that if any customer even mentioned anything about threatening a lawsuit/complaining to government etc. they should end all communication immediately and let lawyers handle it from there. If the customer was serious in their threats, it protected the company from customer service saying anything that might be used against them in court. And if they weren't serious? Problem solved, I guess.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is quite true, though I have talked with some Lenovo Customer Service Reps & techs who knew what they were talking about (and some who did not, lol.)
Comment has been collapsed.
Finally someone who has an idea about how 99% of customer support works nowadays! If accounts were mass banned, response could even come from a bot.
Comment has been collapsed.
I support HBs decision in whoever they will ban. I'm sure they have a good reason. Also, no one cares about "European" law, especially not HB.
Comment has been collapsed.
Who would you rather support, a kind and friendly company or an evil corporation (EU)?
Comment has been collapsed.
Usually i would support kind and friendly company but in this case i totally support evil corporation (EU).
Comment has been collapsed.
Evil corporation EU lol, this kid is some brainwashed kid from Russia. EU is the best thing that happened to consumer rights
Comment has been collapsed.
While they reactivated the account, where is the 180° turn? They still go with their mantra of ToS allows them to do whatever.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly. All their reply is saying is that they apologize for OP not receiving a warning before getting locked out. (Even though they themselves stated that "we sometimes make a one-time exception", which means it's not even a standard thing. So what exactly are they apologizing for?) They completely ignored the EU/ToS argument.
Comment has been collapsed.
Heey SchizoDoll o/
I'd seen that reddit thread aswell, highly amusing how it turned out to be a German citizen who gave HB their just desserts. I admire how they seem to be a people so confident with such laws and regulations. But it's cool, it always struck me as silly how HB disabled not only your ability to purchase but any unclaimed games you had and paid for, including subs.
That said, I think they are still within their rights to deny service (purchasing at their store) despite lifting bans on unclaimed games and subs.
Comment has been collapsed.
they are free to do so imo. Just the thing that they lock you completely out, refuse to speak to you and gives you generic answer all the time is bad. Sure, go ahead and deny me your services, but I want to have access to things I purchased or I want my money back.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, sadly that's the standard response from big companies imo. Good that someone stood up to HB and showed what threat works.
Comment has been collapsed.
In Poland, u cant deny anyone to buy your product, you cant ban human from buy in any store. If u sell something, its allowed to every ppl here(exceptions for under 18yo, who cant buy alcohol, number games, cigarettes etc).
There are even penalties if u wont sell item for someone who want to buy it(exception is online buying and item just ends, but if you buy from another account and they will send u u can go to court and easily win with big punishment for shop)
Comment has been collapsed.
Welp. If they sell their stuff in the EU, they also have to abide by the laws. Easy as that.
Their arrogance, however, is really infuriating.
Comment has been collapsed.
Meh, I am not worried about it. Big publishers only put games on bundles after it reach certain life cycles or copies sale or new dlcs are coming anyway. Its just a matter of supply and demand. Humble could have solve this problem a long ago with a certain measure, but hey lets blame other for a problem they created.
Comment has been collapsed.
Big publishers only put games on bundles after it reach certain life cycles or copies sale or new dlcs are coming anyway. Its just a matter of supply and demand
Locking people out of their account and keeping the keys they paid for under the pretense that they are "selling keys" without being able to prove it as nothing to do with supply and demand.
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay so I have just read a thread on r/humblebundles were a dude got banned and got a generic message where HB just tells you to basically fuck off. However, he is a German citizen aka EU citizen and he threatened them with a lawsuit. Suddenly they can check your account and speak with you like a decent human being. HB is one circus of clowns.
Do the image you wish yourself. Here is the reddit post
and here you can find some highlights
Feel free to share your opinion. I understand that on one hand, this can help out resellers and traders, but it can help people who got banned for giving away a game here for us.
Comment has been collapsed.